- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just curious as to who believes in aliens/UFOs coverup
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:15 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:15 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Send your mailing address to sfseaserpent@access4less.net and I'll send you a DVD copy of our 3 videos at no cost to you as long as you agree not to post any of the videos on the internet without first getting my brother's and my permission.
does this mean i get a copy too!?
1
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Meh, you don't need a degree in how to examine all of the evidence closely to know that you should examine all of the evidence closely.
quote:
I'm sure they did.
Are you 100% sure they did?
quote:
It's laughable that your issue is that they didn't do it how you thought they should do it.
It's not how I think they should do it. It's how the scientific method demands that they do it.
quote:
Why did the marine biologist conclude my 3rd video only contained images of an inanimate object floating on the surface of the water and coming in with the incoming tide but didn't bother to check the tide chart before jumping to that conclusion?
You tell me.
quote:
Who knows. Maybe he didn't want to waste any more time on you and your brother. Maybe he's an idiot. Maybe he's part of the conspiracy.
What I do know is that his actions don't lend credibility to your story.
Sure it does.
The marine biologist said he agreed with us that the two objects in the 3rd video were definitely connected to each other but he asserted it was just an inanimate object floating on the surface of the water coming into SF Bay with the incoming tide.
Since the tide was beginning to go out at the time of the sighting. it means that it is impossible for the 2 objects to be just an inanimate object floating at the surface of the water coming into SF Bay with the incoming tide.
That means it must be an animate object moving against the tide which lends credibility to my brother's and my assertion that it is a large unknown serpentine marine animal.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:32 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Send your mailing address to sfseaserpent@access4less.net and I'll send you a DVD copy of our 3 videos at no cost to you as long as you agree not to post any of the videos on the internet without first getting my brother's and my permission.
quote:
does this mean i get a copy too!?
No.
I'm not spending my hard earned money to send free copies of our videos to every doubting Thomas who wants to see them.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:35 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
It's not how I think they should do it. It's how the scientific method demands that they do it.
Says the non scientist to all the scientists. ROFLMAO
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I'm not spending my hard earned money to send free copies of our videos to every doubting Thomas who wants to see them.
good thing you can upload them for free to the internets. youtube for example. hell, you can even have it play full speed, then half, then frame by frame. ALL IN ONE VIDEO! for free!!
but hey. keep coming up with those excuses baw. and i love how you continue to tell me im a skeptic when im not. i absolutely think its plausible for giant sea serpents to be real. we discover new species of animals all the time. especially sea animals.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:40 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Gotta give it to the charlatan liar.
Give my brother and me a polygraph test and let's see if both my brother and I pass the test.
When we both pass the polygraph test then you can make up an excuse how we could be liars and both pass a polygraph test when one of the questions will be, "Did you see a 60+ foot long sea serpent that was only 20 yards away from you?"
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:44 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Give my brother and me a polygraph test and let's see if both my brother and I pass the test.
wanna know why polygraphs arent admissible in court? because they arent reliable.
also, if you give a 10 year old who believes in santa and the easter bunny a polygraph test and ask if santa and the easter bunny are real, guess what..... when they say yes, it wont register as a lie.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:52 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
It's not how I think they should do it. It's how the scientific method demands that they do it.
You can't demand that your doubters follow the scientific method unless you follow it, too. You have to allow peer review. If you want the support of the scientific community, you have to accept the scrutiny of any scientist who sees your research as worthy of investigation. The onus is upon you to craft a theory, find evidence supporting it, publish your results and then sit back and wait for others to attempt to duplicate your results.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:55 pm to beerJeep
quote:
good thing you can upload them for free to the internets. youtube for example. hell, you can even have it play full speed, then half, then frame by frame. ALL IN ONE VIDEO! for free!!
I would have to pay to get the 3 videos digitized then I would have to pay someone to put all 3 of them on youtube since I have an old computer and am on dial-up.
Besides, I like how bmy has been respectful to me when we have talked about my sightings and videos.
I take him at his word that he is an aquatic biologist and I would be interested in hearing his opinion after he views all 3 videos.
BTW, On the first DVD, I include the untouched first video at regular speed and at a slower speed then a "Find Edges" version at regular speed and at a slower speed.
I do the same thing on the 2nd DVD with the 2nd video.
On the 3rd DVD I include the untouched 3rd video at regular speed and at a slower speed but I didn't do a "Find Edges" version.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:57 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I would have to pay to get the 3 videos digitized then I would have to pay someone to put all 3 of them on youtube since I have an old computer and am on dial-up.
ah. more excuses. thats sweet.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:59 pm to beerJeep
quote:
I would have to pay to get the 3 videos digitized then I would have to pay someone to put all 3 of them on youtube since I have an old computer and am on dial-up.
quote:
ah. more excuses. thats sweet.
What's your excuse for refusing to set up a polygraph test for my brother and me to take?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:10 pm to Kentucker
quote:
You can't demand that your doubters follow the scientific method unless you follow it, too. You have to allow peer review. If you want the support of the scientific community, you have to accept the scrutiny of any scientist who sees your research as worthy of investigation. The onus is upon you to craft a theory, find evidence supporting it, publish your results and then sit back and wait for others to attempt to duplicate your results.
Meh, my brother and I have always been willing to show our videos to any scientist who will analyze our videos as long as they agree to document how and why they came to their conclusion so it can be reviewed and verified by their peers.
I notice that one of the boxes in your flow chart of The Scientific Method says "Analyze and interpret data".
Part of analyzing and interpreting the data is to check a tide chart for the day and time of the sightings, something that the marine biologist who examined our 3rd video didn't do.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:10 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
What's your excuse for refusing to set up a polygraph test for my brother and me to take?
look up buddy. they arent reliable. give a 10 year old a polygraph and ask him if santa is real. when they say yes, it wont register as a lie. why? because THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:30 pm to beerJeep
quote:
wanna know why polygraphs arent admissible in court? because they arent reliable.
also, if you give a 10 year old who believes in santa and the easter bunny a polygraph test and ask if santa and the easter bunny are real, guess what..... when they say yes, it wont register as a lie.
A 10 year old may actually believe they saw Santa and the Easter Bunny and pass the polygraph test but someone who knows they are lying about seeing Santa and the Easter Bunny will most likely fail the test.
No one could actually see a 60+ foot long sea serpent from only 20 yards away and not know that they actually saw a 60+ foot long sea serpent.
So your excuse for not setting up a polygraph test for both of us to take is that you think two people can lie about seeing a 60+ foot long sea serpent from only 20 yards away and when both people say yes, they will pass that question on the polygraph test as telling the truth.
quote:
also, if you give a 10 year old who believes in santa and the easter bunny a polygraph test and ask if santa and the easter bunny are real, guess what..... when they say yes, it wont register as a lie.
Again, we both will be asked individually, "Did you see a 60+ foot long sea serpent from only 20 yards away?"
It would be impossible for 2 people to both pass that question as telling the truth unless they are both telling the truth.
What have you got to lose?
Since you "know" that we are both lying, I would think you would jump at the chance to prove we are both liars.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:36 pm to beerJeep
quote:
look up buddy. they arent reliable. give a 10 year old a polygraph and ask him if santa is real. when they say yes, it wont register as a lie. why? because THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.
Meh, if someone knows they are lying when they say they saw a 60+ foot long sea serpent from only 20 yards away then they don't actually believe they are telling the truth and it is very likely that they will flunk the polygraph test.
Make it two people who know they are lying when they say they saw a 60+ foot long sea serpent from only 20 yards away and it's impossible for both of them to pass a polygraph test.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Are you 100% sure they did?
No. Are you 100% sure they didn't?
quote:
It's not how I think they should do it. It's how the scientific method demands that they do it.
Show us where the scientific method demands that they view them how you require them to be viewed.
quote:
Sure it does.
No, it doesn't. Nothing he did or said adds credibility to your story. Nothing.
quote:
The marine biologist said he agreed with us that the two objects in the 3rd video were definitely connected to each other but he asserted it was just an inanimate object floating on the surface of the water coming into SF Bay with the incoming tide.
Since the tide was beginning to go out at the time of the sighting. it means that it is impossible for the 2 objects to be just an inanimate object floating at the surface of the water coming into SF Bay with the incoming tide.
That means it must be an animate object moving against the tide which lends credibility to my brother's and my assertion that it is a large unknown serpentine marine animal.
I don't care what you think this means. What it absolutely doesn't mean is that it was a sea monster.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:42 pm to Kentucker
quote:
You can't demand that your doubters follow the scientific method unless you follow it, too. You have to allow peer review. If you want the support of the scientific community, you have to accept the scrutiny of any scientist who sees your research as worthy of investigation. The onus is upon you to craft a theory, find evidence supporting it, publish your results and then sit back and wait for others to attempt to duplicate your results.
He has no interest in any of that. These types never do. They're selling a lie and if it were properly challenged, it would easily fall apart. The only way to perpetuate it is to maintain the mythology.
That's why there are no quality videos or credible testimony of a single sighting. It's not just sea monsters, either.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:43 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Are you 100% sure they did?
quote:
No.
Then it is possible that you are wrong.
I am 100% sure the marine biologist didn't analyze and interpret all of the data because he didn't check a tide chart for the day and time of the sighting before he jumped to his conclusion and he did;t analyze the video frame by frame.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:54 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Then it is possible that you are wrong.
Sure. I'm not 100% sure there isn't a plate of spaghetti orbiting the sun, either.
It's equally possible that I'm wrong about that.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:59 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
as long as you agree not to post any of the videos on the internet without first getting my brother's and my permission.
He's going to post them, and it's going to be awesome.
Page 41 of 58
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News